About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....

[expo01]

I had both the 85 1.8 and the 135L.

The 135L was the first lens that immediately wow'd me. Fully open it's very sharp and has very little CA. I bought it together with the 35 1.4, 85 1.2 and 85 1.8.

I have sold 3 of the lenses again, which only leaves me with the 85 1.2.

Here why I sold them:

- 35 1.4: It's the only lens I've had trouble with. Sent it in a couple times, even 2 times with 2 bodies. Back-/Frontfocus was an issue. I could correct it via micro-adjustment on the fullframe, sent it in, came back, had to adjust even more which had the effect that it wouldn't be adjustable anymore on APS-H (out of range). Ultimately I decided to sell it off.

- 85 1.8: It's a good bang-for-your-buck lens with pretty good AF speed. But I mostly wanted to use the 85mm range for portraits, so it almost never made its way out of the bag, because the big brother 85 1.2 was there. I initially bought the 85 1.8 for concert/sport...for both of which I've used the 70-200 2.8 II alot more. That extra stop of light is not that big of an issue anylonger.

- 135L: Use of the lens got killed by the 70-200 2.8 II, yes I think it's just that good. 135L has a much slower AF speed aswell. With a bit of distance you can get (at 200mm, 2.8) a pretty pleasing bokeh for portraits with the 70-200. If you however like the 135mm range alot and want to do portrait more than sports/concert/catwalk shows etc, then the 135L might just be the lens for you.

 

[Mr Simpleton]

Even if somewhat old, this compares the 85/1,8, 100/2 and 135/2:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

He used both cropped and full sensor.

 

[dirtcastle]

I agree that the 85mm f/1.8 is perfectly good for the price. And it's true that the CA is something to watch for. I've had good results correcting CA in Lightroom 4.

 

[elflord]

Something we should all take from this post, DXO is not that impressive when it comes to equipment reviews.

Their lens reviewers aren't the best, but their sensor reviews are excellent (in my opinion, there isn't a better resource for sensor benchmarking).

For them to slap some of these very low "scores" on lenses that are known to be excellent tells us quite a bit about their lack of commitment to be a respected camera and lens reviewer, and a lot about their cavalier attitude.

On the contrary, a good reviewer should be willing to shine some cold hard factual light on what they are reviewing, and should not feel obliged to validate whatever prejudices are held by the general public. In fact it's their role to do precisely the opposite -- to burst some of those bubbles and set the record straight.

 

[Northstar]

Something we should all take from this post, DXO is not that impressive when it comes to equipment reviews.

Their lens reviewers aren't the best, but their sensor reviews are excellent (in my opinion, there isn't a better resource for sensor benchmarking).

For them to slap some of these very low "scores" on lenses that are known to be excellent tells us quite a bit about their lack of commitment to be a respected camera and lens reviewer, and a lot about their cavalier attitude.

On the contrary, a good reviewer should be willing to shine some cold hard factual light on what they are reviewing, and should not feel obliged to validate whatever prejudices are held by the general public. In fact it's their role to do precisely the opposite -- to burst some of those bubbles and set the record straight.

wow..I agree with your premise...BUT, in this case they are just plain wrong with their scoring when it comes to these two lenses...pull your head out of the sand DXO. Think about this, they are saying that Canon and their entire team of engineers, have spent many years developing the new and improved 70-200 2.8ii...years, tons of money...and a couple of guys at DXO say "hey, this lens sucks compared to the old one".

In my mind, what DXO did here with these two lenses would be analogous to saying I've reviewed the golf career of Jack Nicklaus and have graded his career a "C+". I'm doing this because I have the courage to set the record straight about Nicklaus, and burst some bubbles.

 

[elflord]

wow..I agree with your premise...BUT, in this case they are just plain wrong with their scoring when it comes to these two lenses..

I agree that their lens reviews aren't great, some of the competition are better (especially photozone, lensrentals and lenstip) I didn't suggest otherwise. Where we differ is in the view that the reviewer is obliged to show deference to products that have better reputations.

Think about this, they are saying that Canon and their entire team of engineers, have spent many years developing the new and improved 70-200 2.8ii...years, tons of money...

In my opinion, the labor of canon's engineers shouldn't be a factor in the review.

Again, this is where we just don't quite agree -- you seem to think that reviewers should be required to show some deference based on the reputation of the product, the manufacturer, or the general public's prior beliefs about those two things. Nor should they be trying to fudge their scoring systems to make certain products look good.

In my mind, what DXO did here with these two lenses would be analogous to saying I've reviewed the golf career of Jack Nicklaus and have graded his career a "C+". I'm doing this because I have the courage to set the record straight about Nicklaus, and burst some bubbles.

No, that's just silly. I'm not trying to suggest that the reviewers criteria should be to oppose widely held prejudices for the sake of being contrary, I'm suggesting that these shouldn't be a factor.

BTW, for all the DxO bashing, I'll say this again -- there is noone who does better sensor reviews.

 

[Northstar]

wow..I agree with your premise...BUT, in this case they are just plain wrong with their scoring when it comes to these two lenses..

I agree that their lens reviews aren't great, some of the competition are better (especially photozone, lensrentals and lenstip) I didn't suggest otherwise. Where we differ is in the view that the reviewer is obliged to show deference to products that have better reputations.

Think about this, they are saying that Canon and their entire team of engineers, have spent many years developing the new and improved 70-200 2.8ii...years, tons of money...

In my opinion, the labor of canon's engineers shouldn't be a factor in the review.

Again, this is where we just don't quite agree -- you seem to think that reviewers should be required to show some deference based on the reputation of the product, the manufacturer, or the general public's prior beliefs about those two things. Nor should they be trying to fudge their scoring systems to make certain products look good.

In my mind, what DXO did here with these two lenses would be analogous to saying I've reviewed the golf career of Jack Nicklaus and have graded his career a "C+". I'm doing this because I have the courage to set the record straight about Nicklaus, and burst some bubbles.

No, that's just silly. I'm not trying to suggest that the reviewers criteria should be to oppose widely held prejudices for the sake of being contrary, I'm suggesting that these shouldn't be a factor.

BTW, for all the DxO bashing, I'll say this again -- there is noone who does better sensor reviews.

elford...agree to disagree...it's a fact that the 70-200 2.8ii and 300 2.8ii are superb lenses...to say otherwise discredits your rep. this is my point pure and simple. with that said, how can you trust ANY review, lens or sensor, from an outfit that as a matter of fact, has screwed up multiple lens reviews not just to a small degree...but to an enormous degree.

crazy how people see things differently. no disrespect to your opinion though elf.

 

[elflord]

elford...agree to disagree...it's a fact that the 70-200 2.8ii and 300 2.8ii are superb lenses...to say otherwise discredits your rep.

I didn't say otherwise. Where did DxO say otherwise ?

this is my point pure and simple. with that said, how can you trust ANY review, lens or sensor, from an outfit that as a matter of fact, has screwed up multiple lens reviews not just to a small degree...but to an enormous degree.

I would trust their sensor reviews, because their track record on sensor reviews is unparalleled. I don't see why their failure to deliver good lens reviews discredits their sensor reviews. I can see why fans (especially fans of brands that don't use Sony sensors) will go out of their way to reach for reasons, valid or not to discredit their sensor reviews. It's kind of like saying that you don't trust Jack Nicklaus's golf playing because he doesn't know anything about lenses. You might argue that reviewing lenses and reviewing sensors are related skills, but the evidence suggests otherwise (the best lens reviewers aren't notable for good sensor reviews and vice versa)

As for their lens reviews -- what I don't like about their lens reviews, as I stated previously, is that an attempt to summarize lens performance with a single number (or even three numbers) is likely to be unsuccesful.

Their lens reviews do require more insight. In the case of the 70-200 f/2.8 lens review for example, giving the lens a weak score and running away doesn't quite cut it -- it requires a bit more explanation. Why does the lens get a lower score ? Is it just plain worse than the 70-200 f/2.8 ? How does the weaker benchmark result play out in terms of performance in the field ? etc.

With their sensor reviews, they do go into more depth (for example, they pinpoint exactly where the Canon 5DIII sensor falls short compared to the Nikon -- it's basically low ISO shadow noise).

 

[straub]

As for their lens reviews -- what I don't like about their lens reviews, as I stated previously, is that an attempt to summarize lens performance with a single number (or even three numbers) is likely to be unsuccesful.

That's only a consequence of the real problem. It's their "measurements" that are so incompetent it's almost unbelievable--e.g. the 17-85 kit-lens is "measured" as sharper across the field than the 300L, both mounted on a 7D. Check their resolution maps, MTF charts, whatever, it's all there.

 

[Northstar]

As for their lens reviews -- what I don't like about their lens reviews, as I stated previously, is that an attempt to summarize lens performance with a single number (or even three numbers) is likely to be unsuccesful.

That's only a consequence of the real problem. It's their "measurements" that are so incompetent it's almost unbelievable--e.g. the 17-85 kit-lens is "measured" as sharper across the field than the 300L, both mounted on a 7D. Check their resolution maps, MTF charts, whatever, it's all there.

Another example of why I don't trust dxo's scores...good point straub.

I came back to this post to say that I decided to return the 135f2 (within the 30 days return window) because the IQ just isn't any better than my 70-2002.8ii, except for slightly better bokeh.( i spent considerable time shooting both at 135 and studying the results)It does have the f2 advantage but I found the 70-200 zoom much more useful for my needs, and therefore it was too redundant.

Another surprise...I also found the AF to be more accurate and quicker using the 70-200. My hit rate was higher with the 70-200(sports). I'm wondering if that is normal, or if others have had a similar experience?

 

[Bosman]

I really don't like DXO. I really DO like personal reviews and their images, this tells me more about a lens. Personally I have owned the 135L and there is no flaw, F2 is dead sharp, accuracy results in never a missed shot. You can shoot at F2 and never worry. I only like it on FF personally unless its for sports. The thing is I had the 70-200 too and I was carrying all this equipment and for what? I never or at least can't recall a single shot that didnt look spectacular. The weight is so much nicer than 70-200 and the build is very solid. The glass looks just like my 85L II thick and heavy, not the lens but the glass. You kinda need to expect to be doing head shots and the like more than anything so if you don't shoot stuff like that you might not like the focal length. I recommend getting a plug in for LR4 and having it tell you what focal lengths you use most.
I use this plug in, it tells me focal lengths used. It took a while to read everything but i had it go thru all my wedding photos to determine what lenses i'd like ot limit myself to using given how i used the lenses i have owned.
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/data-plot
He does ask for a donation and its totally worth it!